« ZurückWeiter »
according to the decisions of the doctors of civil and canon law. The first of these obligations is,-‘ Proximi ad proximum qua quisque tenetur proximum non offendere. Secunda, est cognatorum ad illos quorum de genere geniti vel procreati sunt qua tenetur parentes suos non solum non offendere, sed etiam defendere verbo et facto. Tertia, est vassalorum ad dominum qua tenentur non solum non offendere dominum suum, sed defendere verbo et facto. Quarta est, non solum non offendere dominum suum, sed etiam principis injurias vindicare.” “Now, my lord of Burgundy is a good Catholic, a prudent man, a lord of a godly life in the Christian faith, and likewise nearly connected to the king, by which he is bound to love him as himself, and to be careful to avoid giving him any offence. He is his relation by blood, so near as to be his cousin-german, which not only obliges him to be attentive not to give him offence, but on the slightest ground to defend him by speech against all who might intend to injure him. Thirdly, he is his vassal, and is therefore bound to defend him not only by words, but by deeds, with all the united strength of his power. Fourthly, he is his subject, by which he is obliged not only to defend him by word and deed against his enemies, but is bound to avenge him on such as commit, or do intend to commit, and contrive any evil attempts against his person, should such come to his knowledge. Beside these obligations, he is also bounden to his royal majesty, from the daily honours and presents he is in the habit of receiving from him, and not only as his relation, vassal, and subject, as has been stated, but as his very humble knight, duke, count and peer of France; not only a peer of France from two claims, but also the dean of the peerage, which, next to the crown, is the highest rank and prerogative in the kingdom of France. The king has likewise had such an affection for him, and shown him such great honour, as to make him father-in-law to the most noble and potent lord the duke of Guienne and dauphin of the Viennois, his eldest son and heir, by his marriage with the eldest daughter of my lord the duke, and has added to this honour by the marriage of the princess Michelle of France with the eldest son of my aforesaid lord of Burgundy; and, as St. Gregory says, “Cum crescunt dona et rationes donorum, he is obliged to defend him from every injury within his power. This he has acknowledged, does acknowledge, and will acknowledge (if it please God), and will ever retain in his heart the remembrance of these obligations, which are twelve in number, namely, those of neighbour, relation, vassal, subject, baron, count, duke and peer, count and peer, duke, and dean of the peerage, and these two marriages. “These twelve obligations bind him to love, serve and obey the king, and to do him every personal reverence and honour, and not only to defend him against his enemies, but to exercise vengeance against them. In addition, that prince of noble memory, my late lord of Burgundy, his father, when on his death-bed, commanded him, above all things, to behave most loyally, honourably, justly and courageously toward the person of the king of France, his children, and his crown; for he greatly feared his enemies would practise to deprive him of his crown, and that after his decease they would be too strong for him. It was for this reason that, when on his death-bed, he insisted on his sons resisting every attempt of the sort. “The wise and determined conduct of my lord duke of Berry, in conjunction with my above-mentioned deceased lord, must not be forgotten, in their government of the kingdom, so that not even the slightest suspicion was ever formed against them. For these reasons, my lord of Burgundy could not feel greater grief of heart, or more displeasure, than in doing anything respecting the late duke of Orleans that might anger the king. The deed that has been done was perpetrated for the safety of the king's person, and that of his children, and for the general good of the realm, as shall be so fully hereafter explained that all those who shall hear me will be perfectly satisfied thereof. “My lord of Burgundy, therefore, supplicates the king to withdraw from him any hatred he may have conceived against him, and that he would show him that benignity and grace due to his loyal vassal and subject, and to one nearly related to him as he is by blood, while I shall explain tho causes of justification of my lord of Burgundy, in consequence of his commands, which I cannot refuse, for the two following reasons:—In the first place, I am bound by my oath, given to him three years ago, to serve him. Secondly, on his perceiving that I had very small benefices, he gave me annually a considerable pension that I might continue my studies at the schools, which pension has furnished the greater part of my expenses, and will continue, under his good favour, so to do. When, however, I consider the very high importance of the matter I have to discuss, and the great rank of the persons to whom I am to address myself, and, on the other hand, when I feel how weak I am in understanding, memory and language, I am seized with apprehension and fear, so that what abilities and remembrance I may have had are fled. I have no other remedy, therefore, but to recommend myself to God my Creator and Redeemer, to his glorious mother, and to my lord St. John the evangelist, the prince of theologians, that they would have the goodness to guard me from saying or doing any thing wrong, in following the advice of my lord St. Austin, who says, (libro quarto de doctrina Christiana, circa finem :) ‘Sive apud populum vel apud quoslibet jamjamque dicturus, sive quod apud populum dicendum vel ab eis qui voluerint aut potuerint legendum est dictaturus, oret ut Deus sermonem bonum det in os ejus. Sienim regina Hester oravit pro suae gentis salute temporali locutura apud regem ut in os ejus Deus congruum sermonem daret, quanto-magis orare debet, ut tale munus accipiat qui pro aeterna hominum salute in verbo et doctrina laborat,’ &c.
“And because the matters I am to treat of are of such very great moment, it does not behove so insignificant a person as myself to speak of them, nor indeed to open my lips before so august and solemn an assembly. I therefore very humbly entreat you, my noble lords, and the whole company, that should I utter anything improper, it may be attributed to my simplicity and ignorance, and not to malice; for the apostle says, “Ignorans feci: ideoque misericordiam consecutus sum.'
“I should be afraid to speak of such things as my subject will lead me to, and which I am charged to say, were it not for the commands of my lord of Burgundy. After this, I now protest that I intend no injury whatever to any person, whether he be alive or dead; and should it happen that some parts of my speech seem to bear hard for or in the name of my lord of Burgundy, I pray that I may be held excused, as it will proceed from his commands, and in his justification, and not otherwise. But some one may put a question to me, saying, Does it belong to a theologian to offer such justification, in preference to a lawyer 2 I reply, that it certainly does not belong to me, who am neither a theologian nor a lawyer; but to satisfy those who may think such a question proper, I shall say, that were I a theologian, it might become a duty under one consideration, namely, that every doctor in theology is bounden to labour in excusing and justifying his lord, and to guard and defend his honour and good name, according to the truth, particularly when his aforesaid lord is good and loyal, and innocent of all crimes. I prove this consideration to be true, from the duty attached to doctors in theology, to preach and say the truth at all times and in all places. They are likewise styled “Legis divinae professores, quia inter omnes alios doctores ipsi magistenentur profiteri veritatem.’ Should they die for having uttered the truth. they become true martyrs.
“It is not therefore to be wondered at, if I offer my poor abilities in the justification of my before-mentioned lord, since he has afforded me the means of pursuing my studies, and, if God please, will continue so to do. If ever there were a proper time and place to bring forward the justification of my lord of Burgundy, it is at this moment, and before this assembly; and such as may find fault with me for so doing are, I think, to be blamed, for every man of honour and good sense will hold me excused. In the hope, therefore, that no one will bear me ill will for this justification, I shall produce an authority for it from St. Paul.
“‘Radix omnium malorum cupiditas, quam quidem appetentes erraverunt a fide, 1 Tim. vi., which may be thus translated, Covetousness is the root of all evil; for the moment any one os in her net, he follows her doctrine:—she has even made apostates of some who have beer too much seduced by her. This proposition contains three dogmas: first, that covetousness is the motive of all evil to such as she has entangled by her wiles; secondly, that she has caused many apostates, who, having denied the catholic faith, have turned to idolatry; thirdly, that she has made others traitors, and disloyal to their kings, princes, and lords paramount. These three propositions I shall bring forward as my major, and then add a minor, for the complete justification of my said lord of Burgundy. I may indeed divide these into two parts; the first consisting of my major, and the second of my minor. The first will comprehend four others, and discuss the first subject of my theme, the second the second,-and the third the third. In the fourth article, I propose to bring forward some facts as the groundwork of my lord's justification. “In regard to the first article, that covetousness is the root of all evil, I may bring forward an instance to the contrary from the holy Scriptures, which declares, “Initium omnis peccati superbia.' Eccles. x. Ergo, non est cupiditas radix omnium malorum. Since the holy church says that pride is the foundation of sin, covetousness is not the root of all evil, —and thus the words of St. Paul do not seem true. In answer to this I say, from St. John the evangelist, “Nolite diligere mundum necea quae in eo sunt. Siquis diligit mundum, non est charitas Patris in eo: quoniam omne quod est in mundo aut est concupiscentia carnis, autoculorum, aut superbia vitae, quae non est ex Patre sed mundo: et mundus transibit, et concupiscentia carnis; sed qui facit voluntatem Dei vivet in aeternum.' That is to say, Do not love the world, nor place your sole happiness in worldly things; for the pleasures of this world consist in covetousness and in a love of the flesh, in the pursuit of worldly riches and vain honours, which are not the passions given us by God. All worldly things are transitory, —and the world dies and its desires with it; but he who does the will of God, will enjoy everlasting glory with him. “It appears clearly from this quotation from St. John, that there are three sorts of covetousness, which include within them every sin, namely, covetousness of vain honours, covetousness of worldly riches, covetousness of carnal delights; and it was thus understood by the apostle when he said, ‘Radix omnium malorum cupiditas.” Covetousness being understood to appear in the three forms aforesaid, and mentioned by St. John, the first of which is that of vain honours, which is nothing more than a wicked desire, and a disordered inclination to deprive another of his honours or lordships, this passion is called by St. John superbia vitae, and contains within it every vice, namely, pride, vain-glory, anger, hatred, and envy; for when he who is possessed by this passion cannot accomplish his will, he becomes enraged against God, and against those that stand in his way, and thus commits the sin of anger, which increases soon against the person in possession of the aforementioned superiority, to so great a degree that he practises to put him to death. “The second covetousness is called “the covetousness of worldly riches, which is the passion to take away from another his wealth and moveables, and is called by the evangelist concupiscentia oculorum. It includes within it usury, avarice, and rapine. The third covetousness is the concupiscentia carnis, which is merely disorderly desires for carnal delights, or perhaps indolence; as, for example, when a monk or other religieux cannot endure to go to matins, because he is more comfortable in his bed. Sometimes it consists in gluttony, as when any one devours too much meat or wine, because they are pleasing to his tongue and savoury to his palate. At other times, it may show itself in luxury, and in other shapes and manners which it is unnecessary to explain. “My first article is therefore clear, when I said, that “covetousness was the root of all evil,' if we understand it as the apostle did, when he said. “Radix omnium malorum cupiditas: et hoc de primo articulo hujus primae partis. “To enter on the subject of the second article of my major, I shall take it for granted that the greatest possible crime on earth is the crime of high treason, for the highest honour under heaven consists in the royal majesty. Can there then be a greater crime than any injury offered to the royal majesty ? As this crime, therefore, is the deepest, the punishment of it should be the most severe. There are two sorts of kingly dignity, the one divine and perpetual, the other human and temporal; and in like manner, there are two kinds of high treason, the first the crime of treason against the divine, and the second against the human majesty. That of high treason against the divine majesty may be again divided into two parts; first, when an injury is offered personally to our Sovereign Lord God and Creator, such as heresy and idolatry; secondly, when they are committed against the spouse of our
holy Lord God Jesus Christ,-namely the holy Church, and when any schism or division is introduced within it. I therefore mean to say, that heretics and idolaters commit the crime of high treason in the first degree, and schismatics in the second. “The crime of human high treason may be divided into four degrees: first, consisting of . offences done personally against the prince,—of offences done to the person of the queen, his spouse,_of such as are done personally against their children,-and fourthly, of injuries done to the public state. As the crime of high treason has been ever considered as one of the most atrocious, the laws have ordained much severer punishments against it than for any others. In cases of heresy and human high treason, a man may be accused after his death, and a process may be carried on against him: should he be convicted of heresy, his body is taken up from the grave, his bones put into a bag, carried to the place of execution, and burnt. In like manner, should any one be convicted after his decease of human high treason, his body is taken up from the grave, his bones put into a sack, all his wealth in land or moveables is confiscated to the prince, and his children declared incapable of holding lands, or of succeeding to any property. Having distinguished the crimes of high treason, I shall now proceed to prove the second article of my major by authorities and examples, namely, that covetousness has made many apostates, who have denied the catholic faith, and worshipped idols. I have found many instances to prove this, but it would take up too much time to relate the whole: I shall confine myself to three only.
“of JULIAN THE ApostATE.
“The first example is Julian the apostate, who was a Christian and a churchman; but to arrive at the imperial dignity of emperor of Rome, he denied the catholic faith and his baptism, and adored idols, telling the Christians, by way of colouring his apostacy, ‘Christus vere dicit in evangelio suo, Nisi quis renunciaverit omnibus que possidet, non potest meus esse discipulus.” Saying, ‘You who wish to be Christians cannot possess anything.' You must know, that this Julian was a churchman, very learned, and of high descent ; and it was said that he might, had he laboured for it, have been pope; but as the popedom was at that time in a state of poverty, he cared not for it.—and the imperial dignity being the highest in the world, he was very eager to obtain it by any means. Having considered that the pagans were sufficiently strong to refuse to be governed by any Christian, he denied his baptism and the catholic faith, and adopted the pagan religion in the adoration of idols. He also persecuted the Christians, and defamed the name of Jesus CHRIST, which he looked to as one means of succeeding to the empire. The reigning emperor shortly after died ; and the pagans, knowing that Julian was of high birth, great learning, and the most bitter persecutor of the Christians in the world, and who said more than any one else against our holy mother the church, elected him emperor.
“I will now tell you the horrible death that put an end to his days. During his government, the Persians rebelled against Rome. He collected a large army to subdue them, and swore on the altars of his cursed gods, that should he return victorious, he would utterly destroy all Christendom. In the course of his march with the army, he passed a city called Cesarea, in the country of Cappadocia, where he met a very learned doctor in theology, who was bishop of that town, and who is now known by the name of St. Basil. He was an excellently good man, and by means of the truth of his doctrines, all the inhabitants of that country were become Christians. St. Basil waited on the apostate Julian, made his obeisance to him, and presented him with three barley-loaves. The emperor was indignant at the present, and said, “Does he send me mare's food 7 I will return the compliment by sending him horse-meat, namely, three bushels of oats.” The good man excused himself, saying that it was such bread as he and those of that country ate. The emperor, however, swore, that on his return, he would destroy the town so completely, that a plough should pass over the ground, and make a field of the spot where the town now stood, which field should bear wheat—‘Itaque juravit quod faceret eam farriferam et non austeram'—and marched on with his army.
“St. Basil and the Christians took counsel together how they could save the city from this
WOL. I. F
threatened destruction, and imagined it would be best to offer the emperor all their jewels and treasure to appease his anger. They likewise proposed going in procession to a church of our Lady, situated on a mountain near the city, and to remain there for three days to pray to God to save them and their city from ruin. On the third night, St. Basil had a vision, in which he saw a great company of angels and saints assembled before a lady, who thus spoke to one of the saints, called the chevalier Mercure : “Thou hast always been a faithful servant to my son and to me; and on this account I command thee to go and kill the emperor Julian, that false apostate, who so bitterly persecutes the Christians, and says such infamous things of my son and me.' She instantly restored Mercure to flesh and blood, who, like a good knight, took his lance and shield from the roof of the church where it had been affixed after his interment there, and went as he was commanded. When he overtook Julian, he thrust his lance through his body in the presence of his servants: having withdrawn his lance, he threw it across his neck, and none of the emperor's attendants knew who he was. St. Basil, after this vision was ended, hastened to the church wherein was the tomb of the knight, and found neither body, nor lance, nor shield. He called to him the keepers of the church, and asked them what was become of the lance and shield 3 They replied, that in the preceding night they had been carried away, but knew not how or by whom. “St. Basil returned instantly to the mountain, and related his vision to the clergy and people, adding that he had just visited the church where the knight had been buried, but that neither his shield nor lance was to be found; which was a strong confirmation of the truth of the vision. The whole town, shortly after this, visited the church ; and the shield and lance were seen hanging to the roof, as formerly, over the tomb of the knight, —but the point of the lance was covered with blood. It was imagined that this action had required but one day and two nights, and that on the second night the body had been replaced in the tomb, and the arms under the roof. The point of the lance was covered with the blood of Julian the apostate, as has been mentioned; and the chronicle adds, that when slain, he received the blood in his hand, saying, Vicisti me, Galilate 1 that is to say, ‘Thou hast conquered me, Galilean l’ alluding to Jesus CHRIST, and throwing his blood in the air. The same chronicle says, that one of the counsellors and sophists of this Julian had a similar vision respecting his miraculous death, and that he came to St. Basil to be baptised, like a good Christian. He told him he had been present when the emperor was killed, and saw him throw his blood from his hand up into the air. Thus ended miserably the life of Julian the apostate. “We have another example in the monk Sergius, who was a Christian of the church, but through covetousness got admitted into the company of Mohammed, and became his apostle. This monk, considering that Mohammed was a great captain in the armies of Syria and other countries beyond sea, and that the principal lords of the country were almost all destroyed by the plague, leaving only children behind them, said to Mohammed, “If you will follow my advice, I will shortly make you the greatest and most respected lord in the universe.’ Mohammed consented to his proposals; and it was agreed that Mohammed should conquer the whole country by force of arms, and make himself lord of it. The monk was to renounce the Christian religion, and compose a new religious code, in the name of Mohammed. This was done; and all the countries of Arabia, Syria, Africa, Fez, Morocco, Granada, Persia, Egypt, with several others that had been Christians, were converted, or the greater part of them, to the religion of Mohammed, six hundred years after the incarnation of our Lord. Mohammed gave to this monk great abundance of worldly riches, which his covetousness received to the eternal damnation of his soul. “The third example is that of the prince or duke of Simeon, one of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. He was a very powerful prince, and his name was Zambry, and was so smitten with concupiscence, and carnal desires, for a pagan lady, who would not submit to his will unless he consented to adore her idols, that he apostatised, and not only adored idols himself, but induced many of his people and subjects to do the same. The holy Scriptures thus speak of him: “At illi comederunt et adoraverunt deos earum. Initiatusque est Israel Beelphegor. Et iratus Dominus ait ad Moysem, Tolle cunctos principes populi,